1998 (3) TMI 677 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: No prior hearing needed for Registrar's jurisdiction. Annuls High Court's direction.

The Supreme Court clarified that a prior hearing is not required for offenses under the Registrar's jurisdiction under Section 149(3) of the Gujarat ... Previous sanction for prosecution - sanctioning authority: State Government v Registrar - requirement of prior hearing for grant of sanction - statutory interpretation - no addition of words by court - absurdity and ejusdem generis considerations in constructionPrevious sanction for prosecution - sanctioning authority: State Government v Registrar - requirement of prior hearing for grant of sanction - statutory interpretation - no addition of words by court - Whether Section 149(3) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 requires a prior hearing before sanction is accorded by the Registrar for prosecutions other than those under Section 147(1)(c). - HELD THAT: - A plain reading of Section 149(3) shows two parts: (i) identification of the sanctioning authorities - the State Government for offences under Section 147(1)(c) and the Registrar for other offences; and (ii) the proviso that 'such sanction shall not be given except after hearing the party concerned, by an officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order.' The contextual juxtaposition of these parts makes it manifest that the requirement of a prior hearing applies to the sanction given by the State Government through an authorised officer and not to sanctions given by the Registrar. The Court refused to read into the provision omitted words (for example, expressly extending the hearing requirement to the Registrar) because it is not the judicial function to amend statutory language to correct drafting omissions. Reliance was placed on the established principle that courts cannot add words to a statute or recast legislation when the language is plain; judicial construction must not amount to legislation. Moreover, construing the hearing requirement to apply to the Registrar would yield an anomalous result in which an officer authorised by the State would hear parties but the final decision would rest with the Registrar, an outcome that the plain text does not support. For these reasons the High Court's interpretation that prior hearing is required before the Registrar grants sanction was held unsustainable.The High Court's direction requiring prior notice and hearing before sanction by the Registrar is quashed; the hearing requirement in Section 149(3) applies to the State Government's sanction as authorised by an officer of the State and not to the Registrar.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed. The High Court's order directing that prosecution under the Act not proceed until the respondents were given notice and sanction was accorded after hearing is quashed; the statutory hearing requirement in Section 149(3) applies to sanction by the State Government (through an authorised officer) and not to sanction by the Registrar. Issues: Interpretation of Section 149(3) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 regarding the requirement of prior hearing for prosecution under Section 147(1)(d) and the authority for granting sanction.The appellant, a District Co-operative Officer, lodged a prosecution against two respondents under Section 147(1)(d) of the Act for breaching Section 71, with sanction from the district Registrar as per Section 149(3). The High Court directed that prosecution for the mentioned offence cannot proceed without prior hearing to the respondents. The High Court clarified that other offences can proceed as per law, leading to the challenge in this appeal.The High Court's reasoning for the direction was based on Section 149(3) of the Act, which mandates previous sanction for prosecution under the Act, with hearing required only for offences under Section 147(1)(c) by the State Government or Registrar. The High Court's interpretation implied a hearing is necessary for all offences, but the Supreme Court disagreed, citing that the section does not require hearing for offences under the Registrar's jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that it cannot expand legislative intent or add to the statute.The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation, stating that requiring a hearing for offences under the Registrar would create confusion and disrupt the sanctioning process. The Court emphasized that judicial activism should not override legislative judgment. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and annulled the High Court's direction, upholding the original prosecution with Registrar's sanction.In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 149(3) of the Act, emphasizing that a prior hearing is not required for offences under the Registrar's jurisdiction, and upheld the prosecution against the respondents under Section 147(1)(d) with the Registrar's sanction.